No testing or MWC/EIC for 'Maintenence'??

[JohnW2]

It has recently been suggested here that if one replaces a broken/faulty component of an electrical installation on a 'like for like' basis, this counts as 'maintenance' and, as such, "strictly speaking" does not require any testing or issue of a MWC (or EIC).

This sounds rather extraordinary, and is certainly a new one on me - maybe I need some education, in particular in relation to where the regs say anything like the above!

Comments?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

It's true that it does not require certification. That's not the same thing as suggesting that inspection and testing are not necessary, however.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, apart from the dreaded 'like for like' which doesn't exist and is meaningless because a 'replacement' doesn't have to be the same as the original.

Conveniently, there is another thread where a faulty shower has been replaced with a 'like for like' model.
I would maintain that the circuit should be thoroughly tested for a replacement shower and therefore the results may as well be recorded and so a certificate would be issued.

I would test the wiring at a switch mainly to ensure the cpc was satisfactory.

I see no difference but will admit I may not bother issuing a certificate for a replacement switch but that doesn't alter the fact that perhaps I should.

 

[JohnW2]

It's true that it does not require certification.

Do the regs actually say that - if so, where? ... and how far would you take this - what if the "broken component of an electrical installation" which you replaced on a "like for like" basis was, say, a CU - would you then say the same?

That's not the same thing as suggesting that inspection and testing are not necessary, however.

Are you saying that inspection and testing is required but that it is not required to record the results of that I&T anywhere?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Well, apart from the dreaded 'like for like' which doesn't exist and is meaningless because a 'replacement' doesn't have to be the same as the original.

Quite so - but I used the "like for like" phrase (in quotes) because that is what had been said, and was seemingly being used as the definition of 'maintenance' (which, it was being said, "strictly speaking" required no testing or certification).

I would maintain that the circuit should be thoroughly tested for a replacement shower and therefore the results may as well be recorded and so a certificate would be issued.

Agreed.

I see no difference but will admit I may not bother issuing a certificate for a replacement switch but that doesn't alter the fact that perhaps I should.

Fair enough - so does that mean that you are not aware of this provision/'dispensation' for 'maintenance' jobs not ("strictly speaking") requiring any testing or certification?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

does that mean that you are not aware of this provision/'dispensation' for 'maintenance' jobs not ("strictly speaking") requiring any testing or certification?

Well, no and (if I have missed it) I would definitely not agree with it in relation to the shower replacement.
Probably a NICEIC thing.

Does it not depend on the definition of 'maintenance?
If someone is 'maintaining' an installation with which they are familiar or the sole maintainer then it may be understandable.

However, going to a customer's house for the first time to replace an accessory is somewhat different, isn't it?

 

[JohnW2]

does that mean that you are not aware of this provision/'dispensation' for 'maintenance' jobs not ("strictly speaking") requiring any testing or certification?

Well, no and (if I have missed it) I would definitely not agree with it in relation to the shower replacement.

I would be pretty surprised/shocked if it transpired that it exists and that you have missed it!

Does it not depend on the definition of 'maintenance? If someone is 'maintaining' an installation with which they are familiar or the sole maintainer then it may be understandable. However, going to a customer's house for the first time to replace an accessory is somewhat different, isn't it?

Quite so. I'm not really sure that the definition of 'maintenance' really matters if (as I believe to be the case) BS7671 doesn't make any exception of 'maintenence' in terms of its requirements for testing and certification. However, FWIW, the suggestion appeared to be that replacing one broken or faulty switch ("like for like") in a customer's house counted as 'maintenance' and 'therefore' ("strictly speaking") did not require testing or certification.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not really sure that the definition of 'maintenance' really matters

There is a definition in part 2 but ...

My point was that the installation is having maintenance carried out on it but the switch is not being maintained.

Anyway,
MEIWC (p394) "This Certificate may also be used for the replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaires, ... . Appropriate inspection and testing, however, should always be carried out irrespective of the extent of the work undertaken".

I suppose it does say 'may' and is in an appendix but it does seem rather comprehensive and it would seem illogical to omit 'maintenance'..

 

[EFLImpudence]

....

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not really sure that the definition of 'maintenance' really matters

There is a definition in part 2 but ...

There is - and, interestingly, that definition appears to exclude (at least, does not mention) 'replacement' (even if "like for like").

Anyway, ... MEIWC (p394) "This Certificate may also be used for the replacement of equipment such as accessories or luminaires, ... . Appropriate inspection and testing, however, should always be carried out irrespective of the extent of the work undertaken". ... I suppose it does say 'may' and is in an appendix but it does seem rather comprehensive and it would seem illogical to omit 'maintenance'..

Indeed. Moving into the regs proper, various bits of Chapter 63 at least imply that certification is required for replacements, although they do not explicitly use that word (does a replacement count as an 'alteration'?) - e.g. 631.1, 631.3 and 633.1.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I look at:-

The requirements of Sections 631 and 632 for the issue of an Electrical Installation Certificate or a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate shall apply to all the work of the additions or alterations.

When one replaces even a simple light switch one has altered the installation. I have tested and not recorded the results and I know others who have done the same but I am sure I should have filled in a Minor Works Certificate.

I think the like for like comes from Part P rather than BS7671

 

[JohnW2]

The requirements of Sections 631 and 632 for the issue of an Electrical Installation Certificate or a Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificate shall apply to all the work of the additions or alterations.

When one replaces even a simple light switch one has altered the installation. I have tested and not recorded the results and I know others who have done the same but I am sure I should have filled in a Minor Works Certificate.

Indeed - as I implied, that would certainly be my view. I wonder if anyone is going to defend the view about 'maintenance' which I cited in my OP?

I think the like for like comes from Part P rather than BS7671

"Like for like" does not appear in either Part P (which, as you know, is essentially just one sentence) or Approved Document P. I'm pretty certain that it does not appear anywhere in BS7671, but I'm not sure about the OSG. Although oft-quoted, I think it's probably just an 'urban myth'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think the like for like comes from Part P rather than BS7671

Eric - why do you persist in thinking that Part P consists of, includes, covers, whatever, more than it actually does?

This is Part P:



That's it.

That's all there is.

There is nothing else in Part P.

 

[ericmark]

The Part P old 2006 version section 1.9 uses phrase "simplest of like for like replacements." as not requiring a minor works. It does not appear in the new English version.

 

[JohnW2]

The Part P old 2006 version section 1.9 uses phrase "simplest of like for like replacements." as not requiring a minor works. It does not appear in the new English version.

I'm not familiar with that particular version - but, to the best of my knowledge, Part P has never changed (in either England or Wales), and has never had 'sections'. I suspect that you are probably talking about Approved Document P, which is entirely different - and is guidance, not law.

Kind Regards, John